The corner case for QFX3500 is that it is still the only Juniper switch with native FC support, though most others have good FCoE transport support.
Regards, Kurt Bales @networkjanitor JNCIE-ENT #368 On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Pavel Lunin <[email protected]> wrote: > 19.08.2014 19:51, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hardware Requirements for a Virtual Chassis Fabric > > > > A VCF can contain up to four devices configured as spines, and up to > > twenty total devices. > > > > All spine devices must be QFX5100 devices. We recommend optimizing the > > performance of your VCF by also configuring QFX5100 devices as your > > leaf devices. A non-mixed VCF has the highest port density and feature > > support for a VCF. Nevertheless, you can configure any combination of > > QFX5100, QFX3600, QFX3500, or EX4300 devices into leaf devices within > > your VCF. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Any idea what they are talking about? What drawbacks does a mixed VCF > > have in practice? > > > > One thing seems to be that you lose the ability to have output filters > > on interfaces but that's all I know. > > > > I guess, there is a lot of marketing here. Of course, many features are > scaled down to the so-called "least-common denominator", as guys have > already mentioned above. But this is quite not surprising and doesn't > mean you must use a more featured product everywhere just because it's > more featured. > > What about QFX3500, AFAIK, there's just no point to use them at all as > from the price/performance/features perspective QFX5100 is just better > except maybe some corner-cases (which I am not aware of). Using QFX3600 > as leafs when spines are QFX5100 is non-reasonable from the pure > performance PoV as QFX3600 is a 40GE switch and QFX5100 is 10GE. What > about EX4300—of course any vendor would say you better buy 10GE switches > instead of 1GE just because 10GE switches have much more performance. > And this is totally correct, isn't it? ;) > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
